Now, using such language to describe another woman is something I reserve for the exceptional. For example, people like Michele Bachmann. Add Sarah Palin to the list. The other day she said, while talking about the role of government, "I don't know what to think of having in my family Uncle Barney Frank or others to make decisions for me." I completely agree with this interpretation of that remark: "Barney Frank is a high profile Gay Democratic Congressman. In cases of child molesting, the term funny uncle is a derogatory term for a family member who molests children. Conservatives believes gays are predatory child molesters and what better way to make that point than to make gay Congressman Barney Frank the uncle." Source
For an interesting, imo, exchange on this comment, go here.
She is, or should be, a complete embarrassment to the Republican party. I don't know which is worse, the fact that she is truly stupid or the fact that she's a bigot. I guess in the role of vice president - or, worse, president - I'd have to go with the former. But, I am so tired of the degree to which people running for public office choose to wave the flag of homophobia as a badge of honor - and feel empowered to do so.
In talking with Andy Scott the other day, he echoed a sentiment I've heard from others. In short, politicians in Canada would be fired or run out of town for saying some of the things that in the US garner the bigots more support. Interesting.
Why, given the polls, do I even bother? Will anyone remember Sarah Palin in a year? For extensive discussion of why I think we should be concerned, go here.
BTW, in an earlier post I wrote about not being sure about voting. I do not like Obama because he thinks I'm a second class citizen. But, the thought of Palin in the White House should terrify the world. So, holding my nose, I did submit my vote for Obama/Biden. I'm so glad I'm here...
10 months ago
20 comments:
A couple of days ago I came across a conservative article praising Bachmann, and suggesting that the Republicans should run a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012.
Ugh.
I didn't have to hold my nose. I voted joyfully and enthusiastically for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, who has been one of our most courageous Congress(wo)men, who was elected to Congress 6 times, more than Obama and Clinton put together, who was the first to call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney, and the last, who was one of the few to actually vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, who voted against the Iraq war the first time--and every time--who has tirelessly brought to light the voter fraud perpetrated on the American people, especially African-Americans, and who has fearlessly confronted the corporate controlled two-party system that her previous party belongs to (Dems). I am so proud to be voting for this courageous, intelligent woman and her Vice President, Rosa Clemente, the first Puerto Rican to run on a presidential party ticket. You can have it all. You can have peace, racial justice, gender justice, civil rights, the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a visionary commitment to the well-being of the entire planet and all peoples, and every species in every kind of environment on the planet. This is all possible if you vote for Cynthia McKinney for President.
Yeah, I thought about it. But, I just couldn't contribute to a third party vote that gives it to McCain. I loathe the "lesser of two evils" approach, but I caved...
Yeah, I agree with MSEH completely. I am ALL about multiple viable parties especially now that I live in Canada...but I just don't think that now is the time to indulge in personal political principles. Support a third party this time and you hand a vote to McCain and the Republicans. I held my nose and voted for Obama. McCain is just not an option. At least with Obama there is an illusion things will change.
"I just don't think that now is the time to indulge in personal political principles."
Oh, so I should ABANDON MY PERSONAL PRINCIPLES and LIE and vote FRAUDULENTLY for people I don't even support just so other people don't feel threatened by my "personal political principles"?
Are you threatened by my queerness? Should I wear a dress and makeup to match my conventional sex type instead of supporting a THIRD GENDER?! Hey, THIRD GENDERS are less than 5% of the population also, so I maybe I should abandon my PERSONAL GENDER PRINCIPLES as well.
"Support a third party this time and you hand a vote to McCain and the Republicans."
Not where I'm voting--in Massachusetts. Mass is voting for Obama in such overwhelming numbers that my one vote for the Green Party won't amount to a drop in the ocean. Obama is going to get all the Massachusetts Electors. Don't forget--we have an Electoral College system for President, not a popular vote system.
Shaun wrote: "....so other people don't feel threatened by my "personal political principles"?"
Just to clarify - I don't see my voting for Obama as having anything to do with *other* people's principles, etc. I just can't bear the thought of McCain/Palin winning because of a splintering of the left to which I contribute.
I don't buy the analogy to personal decisions about sex/gender. Someone choosing to express the third gender doesn't, imho, have the kind of global impact that the winner of the election does. Macro/mico.
That being said, you raise a good point mentioning that you're in Massachusetts. If I were there I'd probably have felt comfortable voting for McKinney. But, Minnesota has the potential to tilt.
Note - I'm shorthanding this response, but I think you get the drift. Gotta run! :-)
"I don't buy the analogy to personal decisions about sex/gender. Someone choosing to express the third gender doesn't, imho, have the kind of global impact that the winner of the election does. Macro/mico."
I live in a two-gender system that's pretty near universal. Global. It is absolutely a Macro phenomenon. Nearly every culture presently existing is dominated by 2 genders, although almost all cultures acknowledge the presence of third genders, even if they are repressed.
So my third gender in a two-gender dominant system is very much in the same position as a third party in a two-party dominant system.
I guess that's why it I see it that way.
"I live in a two-gender system that's pretty near universal. Global. It is absolutely a Macro phenomenon. Nearly every culture presently existing is dominated by 2 genders, although almost all cultures acknowledge the presence of third genders, even if they are repressed."
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. Gender IS a macro phenomenon. My point, poorly stated, was that the impact of the transgressive act (no pun intended) does not have the macro level impact that changing the outcome of a presidential election does. The operative measure in my pov is impact.
"So my third gender in a two-gender dominant system is very much in the same position as a third party in a two-party dominant system."
There's a difference between being "in the same position," e.g., marginalized, invisible, etc. and having the same impact. My point is that a limited number of votes for a third party ticket has the potential to have - as we have seen - a devastating impact on the outcome of the election. A limited number of third gender persons is not going to disrupt the gender binary (unfortunately) at the macro level.
The analogy works better if we imagine large enough numbers of voters that the third party candidate wins, or large enough numbers of third gender expressive people that the binary is, indeed, turned on its head.
I just can't bear the thought of McCain/Palin winning because of a splintering of the left to which I contribute.
This is part of the reason why third parties can never get a foundation in the US. Democrats talk up third parties until it comes time to go into the booth, then they hold their noses and vote for the lame-o Democrat. It's been happening for decades.
Thus, there is no reason for the Dems to move to the left -- they know anyone even semi-progressive will end up voting for them anyway.
redsock - While your comment may have been meant to be as much a "dig" as an observation, I completely agree with you.
This, however, is the conundrum.
Consider -
Candidate A - Someone who wants to deny my civil rights, e.g., to be a parent, and with whom I disagree on most, if not all, points.
Candidate B - Someone who, while they may be "lame" in many other ways, is not working to deny my civil rights.
Candidate C - Someone who is actively working to provide me with civil rights and is spot on in most issues.
Suppose, as is typically the case, Candidates A and B are fighting it out. One of them is sure to win. Candidate C, while garnering support, won't win - even if all the progressive Dems vote for her/him.
I've got to go for Candidate B. Candidate A is just too much of a risk to my life, my family.
I applaud those who truly vote their conscience. But, I lament the fact that, imho, it is that action that gave us the last 8 years.
While many Canadians might argue this next point, I'll say it anyway. When the day comes that I can vote here, I will be delighted to vote for my true candidate of choice. Had I been able to vote this time around I would likely have voted Green. Why, given what I've said above? Because even though I might disagree with the platform/policies of that analog to Candidates A and B, their win doesn't really stand a chance of leading to legislation that makes me a second class citizen.
Just my .02.
Totally NOT a dig, though I knew it might sound that way. It's just a depressing state of affairs, that's all.
I voted Dem until 1996 -- but just could not vote for Clintomn a second time. I voted third party in 1996 and 2000, but only because I knew that in New York State, there was no chance of that Clinton or Gore would lose. ... If my state was hotly contested, then yes, I would have voted Dem both times.
I think we're probably on the same page.
I held my nose and voted Kerry in 2004 -- for the sole reason of making his vote total 1 higher. (We were already well on our way in the application process to come to Canada.)
I am not voting absentee this year -- and would not be voting even if we were still in the US. I now refuse to support in any way what is obviously a broken and crooked system.
When the day comes that I can vote here, I will be delighted to vote for my true candidate of choice.
Me too!!!
I applaud those who truly vote their conscience. But, I lament the fact that, imho, it is that action that gave us the last 8 years.
What gave us the last 8 years was the Supreme Court plus two stolen elections.
Thus, there is no reason for the Dems to move to the left -- they know anyone even semi-progressive will end up voting for them anyway.
This is also why we should never support any movement towards a two-party system in Canada. Coalition building is one thing, but when people start complaining that the NDP should "merge" with the Liberals, point to the US as the prime example of why we don't want that.
Support a third party this time and you hand a vote to McCain and the Republicans.
Blanket statement? Not depending on what state you live in?
"What gave us the last 8 years was the Supreme Court plus two stolen elections."
Ultimately, yes. But, I would argue that, without the effect of the third party candidates the Court would not have become involved. And, without 2000, we wouldn't have had the theft of 2004.
In their defense of Ralph Nader, one Green Party site says, "According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election."
Nader, e.g., received 97,488 votes in Florida. Had all, or even half, of those votes gone to Gore...
Call me a chicken shit, a sell-out, or whatever - clearly the sentiment of these comments. But, as long as the US system is one that really ignores third parties *and* as long as it appears that even if every one of us who would support a third party did so the outcome would fall to one of the two "major" parties, as long as I do vote (another question - as I wasn't sure whether I would do so this time or not - until Palin), it will have to be for the lesser of two evils. How's that for a run-on sentence?
Call me a chicken shit, a sell-out, or whatever - clearly the sentiment of these comments.
What??? If you think that's the sentiment of my comments, or Redsock's for that matter, you are completely mis-reading them.
Voting is a personal and political decision that we each make for ourselves. I would never think or say or imply you were a sell-out or a chicken shit or anything negative for voting how you feel you should vote.
As Redsock said above, he's voted Dem when it seemed like the right thing to do at that time, as have I.
I strongly disagree that the Nader vote was responsible for bringing us 8 years of the Bush regime, and I could discuss and debate that point, but that in no way implies a denigration of your choice. Merely a different perspective.
Honestly, I'm shocked that you would interpret these comments that way.
"According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes."
As we should all know, this is bullshit. 543 is a 100% made-up fictional number -- it has no basis in reality. We will never know how Florida voters truly voted. Jews for Buchanan, anyone?
The true horror in Florida was the fact that Harris and her stooges managed to deny the right to vote to well over 100,000 people. Palast has shown this is an unassailable fact. Bonus: Some of these people were kicked off the rolls for felonies they committed in 2007 -- and this was back in 2000, remember?
The real problems in 2000 (or 2002 or 2004 or 2006 -- and now 2008) never get mentioned as people chuckle over "hanging chads" and how dumb people down there must be to not be able to mark a box.
But, I would argue that, without the effect of the third party candidates the Court would not have become involved.
There is no way to prove this, so I'll take the other side and say the Republicans simply would have cheated more -- and other states which had the same issues as Florida would have become better known when the right stepped up its attacks in those states (New Mexico was also seriously crooked). When Bush Co saw the recounting in Florida was going Gore's way, they stepped up their attacks and went to the right-leaning courts to stop it.
(P.S. Gore was an idiot for not demanding a state-wide recount right away. Why he and his lawyers decided to ask for only four counties, I'll never know. If he had done the smart thing, it would have been very hard for Bush Co to continue their crimes.)
Blaming Nader is total unmitigated horseshit.
I posted this yesterday but it didn't come through, so I'll try again with an expanded version.
Adam said, "Support a third party this time and you hand a vote to McCain and the Republicans."
Is that a blanket statement, no matter what state you live in? Because in plenty of states that are not "in play", where the outcome is reasonably certain, your vote is meaningless anyway, so there is IMO an opportunity to vote your conscience.
As Redsock mentioned, in New York State we had the opportunity to vote for Nader and it didn't hurt anyone, since NY would and did go to the Dems. If I lived in Ohio or PA, I would have voted Dem.
Shaun's vote for McKinney also hurts no one. Given the ridiculous electoral college, it's hard for me to understand saying that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the Republicans.
And of course as soon as I post that... here comes my comment from yesterday. :)
Anyway, it case it wasn't 100% clear, I respect anyone's decision to vote as s/he sees fit. We've each got to do what's right for ourselves.
Post a Comment